I think we are arguing using a different definition of "big" government. If a government has a large army but is not authorized to use it to do whatever it wants, and there are sufficient checks and balances in place to prevent military abuse, the government is not "big" in my eyes. Does that make sense to you?
I don't think there's much scientific evidence that any religion is good or bad. The point is that wokeness is a religion, it is being pushed in schools by the left, and in my opinion it is far worse than Christianity.
There is plenty of evidence Biden's tax plan will impact the middle class more than the rich. Historically when taxes are raised businesses move wealth out of the country and prices rise, and the government even ends up collecting less taxes than before. This happened during the Obama administration and Obama even admitted he would rather raise taxes even if it meant less tax revenue.
Conservatives aren't necessarily against the idea of things like social security; they just question whether government is the best organization to provide these services. It can easily be argued that the government botched social security big time, for instance.
EPA was started by Nixon, a conservative president. Just because we want small government doesn't mean we necessarily want all of government shut down.
The right frame anti-abortion as pro-life. Do you consider murder laws authoritarian? Pro- and anti-abortion arguments are both grounded in morality, but claiming one is more authoritarian than the other is showing willful ignorance as to what the right believes.
> And official support for Christianity.
There is practically zero scientific evidence backing the transgender movement. Or the world-view that western civilization is systemically-racist. Or the left's views on sexual norms and marriage. Yet these and other woke ideologies are taught in public schools with support from the Biden administration and national teacher's unions. Wokeness is a terrible state religion, much worse than Christianity ever was.
> And, of course, the military, the biggest part of big government and big government power.
Wanting a strong military does is not the same as wanting authoritarian government that controls every aspect of our lives. You can have a minimal government with a large military, or an authoritarian government with a small military.
> And keeping the poors and minorities in their places.
The left wish they were the righteous ones helping the poor and minorities. I'd suggest reading the first essay in "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell. He argues strongly that the "white saviours" that are liberals have made the plight of minorities far worse than had they never intervened. As Sowell often emphasizes, results matter more than good intentions.
> And conversely, the rich in their place.
Biden's spending spree and proposed tax increases will hurt the middle class the most. Socialism and communism are the great equalizers; they eventually make everyone poor except a few elite that are connected to the government.
> But yeah, they'd want to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, the Postal Service, the EPA, OSHA, and all that froo-fraw that gets in the way of true Americans.
I don't even know how to address this straw man argument.
> Darn those leftists with their college education and science and their book learnin' and their economic productivity!
Thomas Sowell calls you folks the "intelligenstia". I suggest you read "Intellectuals and Society". The arrogance of America's ruling oligarchy and intellectual elite will be a major contributor to our country's destruction or downfall.
Maybe get your tongue out of your cheek? Not supporting communism doesn't mean or even provide evidence Hitler wasn't leftwing. Often the greatest infighting occurs between groups with adjacent political beliefs. A group must fight for unity among the ranks of those who are close but not in full agreement before tackling those with opposite beliefs.
Hitler hated communism because he believed it was invented by Jews. Marx's parents were Jews, although Marx himself did not identify as Jewish in the slightest. Communism also didn't fit with Hitler's views views on Aryan superiority.
"From what we can tell, Hitler hated communism because it was a system that emphasized class struggle over national and racial struggle. He saw it as a system that was developed by the Jews to deliberately undermine both national unity and racial purity.
Interestingly enough, Hitler did not apparently have a problem with the economic aspects of communism, or at least most of them. His party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and they successfully competed for many of the same workers the Communists wanted to win over. The Nazi flag had a red background because it was a socialist movement, albeit one that emphasized socialism within the nation while those outside the nation were viewed with varying levels of inferiority".
So again, Hitler held views fairly adjacent to communism, putting him clearly in leftwing territory.
I can't say I agree with you that Biden is putting on a show just to keep his party together, but I'll leave it at that for now.
I do actually think public health is a legitimate government concern. That doesn't mean the government needs to exercise authority to the fullest extent for every health concern.
The 2010 and 2018 flu epidemics both killed far more children than COVID has killed. Where were the child vaccine mandates, school mask mandates, and school lockdowns then?
Once the COVID vaccine came out, the need for government intervention was mostly over. The authoritarianism comes from the continued over-reactions and unnecessary use of authority that lasts to this day.
I am happy to look at things from both sides. When I asked who are the rightwing authoritarians, I wanted answers that I could use to look things up.
As for Hitler, I believe he was left wing for the following reasons:
He pushed socialist programs like universal health care, welfare, government job creation, etc..
He was anti-established religion, including Christianity. He said that when he was done with Judaism, Christianity would be next.
His beliefs on eugenics and racial superiority had far more in common with other leftists of his time. The American counterparts on the left, for instance, including the founders of planned parenthood, wanted to prevent minorities from reproducing,
Hitler used the public education system to indoctrinate the youth into his ideology, a similar tactic of the left in the U.S. Hitler also encouraged/forced mothers to go to work, further undermining the nuclear family.
Hitler made gun control laws stricter. Hitler also supported abortions.
The only counter argument I've heard is Hitler was a fascist which is obviously right-wing. I don't buy this argument at all. Fascism seems like it could apply to either the right or the left equally.
I have to say, I find your "survivorship bias" argument novel, but also a bit ridiculous, considering that Karl Marx openly called for violent, bloody revolution:
“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
So the ideology claims violent overthrow of government is needed, but it's not the ideology's fault when the overthrow leads to a murderous totalitarian regime arguably far worse than the government it replaced? I don't know how you can seriously hold this world view.
> Conservatives want to increase the power of those government institutions that are the least accountable, and are most connected to the use of violence: the police and the military.
That's just not true. Conservatives want to balance the need for police to enforce the law with the risk that the police acquire too much power. Also, conservatives recognize far more correctly than the left that we need military strength. It was the leftist call for demilitarization prior to WWII that contributed to Hitler's success. The left-leaning Jimmy Carter found his policies wholly inadequate for dealing with the Soviet Union. In contrast, it was Winston Churchill that saved Britain in WWII, and it was Ronald Reagan's expansion of military spending that bankrupted the Soviet Union. Leftists have grand ideas of defunding the police and military that simply don't work in reality.
> The Left ultimately wants to abolish government power and create a stateless, classless society
The left think they can create utopias. Again, their grandiose visions never work in reality. Where has this stateless, classless, society ever succeeded? The 20th century is littered with the bodies of those slain in pursuit of false utopias.
> The Democratic Party is far from being controlled by leftists:
Biden's administration is by far the most leftist we have seen in history. It makes Obama's administration seem almost reasonable. 6-10 trillion in projected socialist spending on socialist programs, unconstitutional eviction moratoria, authoritarian health mandates, and woke agendas with regards to race, gender, and public education, all provide a wealth of evidence that your current view on the democratic party may not be grounded in reality either, at least when it comes to what they are actually doing.
That's not what authoritarian means. It doesn't mean "pro authority". It means "of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority". What does the support of police or judges have to do with that?
For a society to function, it has to have officials that enforce the law. If you aren't "pro police", then you are probably an anarchist. Let me know when you find a successful example of an anarchist society.
Conservatives aren't pro police. Sane individuals grounded in reality are pro police. And sane individuals across both political aisles are also concerned with police and judicial overreach. There is a balance to be found here.
Left's perspective: women have a right to abort their unborn children.
Right's perspective: unborn children have a right to life and protection of the law.
Both sides are arguing a moral argument. Do women have a right to abort their babies? They certainly haven't had this right throughout the entirety of human civilization. Do unborn children deserve the protection of the law? Again, this wasn't really a major issue because abortions as a medical procedure didn't really exist until recently.
But trying to claim that conservatives are being authoritarian is where I think you are wrong. It's no more authoritarian to them than it is to enforce that you can't murder people outside the womb.
The two are connected in that authoritarianism can occur in any institution of authority, not just government.
The left want more centralized government power, but they are also happy to wield power and authority anywhere they can obtain it.
I didn't think I'd need to provide evidence that the left want to extend government reach, though. What do you think the 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill will do? What do you think the failed "for the people" act tried to do? What do you think Biden tries to do when he has the CDC unconstitutionally ban evictions, or has OSHA force employers to vaccinate their employees against a disease with a .2% IFR?
Except what you are saying is not really true. Most conservatives want to reduce government power, not extend it. The left, on the other hand, universally wants to extend government reach. I would recommend reading "The Authoritarian Moment" which goes into detail as to how the left are basically winning: https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Moment-Weaponized-Ameri...
To quote from the book's introduction:
"There are certainly totalitarians on the political right. But statistically, they represent a fringe movement with little institutional clout. The authoritarian left, meanwhile, is ascendant in nearly every area of American life. A small number of leftists—college-educated, coastal, and uncompromising—have not just taken over the Democratic Party but our corporations, our universities, our scientific establishment, our cultural institutions. And they have used their newfound power to silence their opposition."
I think there have been enough studies now to show that the problem with most public schools in the U.S. have little or nothing to do with underfunding. Thomas Sowell's recent book, "Charter Schools and their enemies", shows that Charter schools with less funding can insanely outperform public schools they compete with in inner cities, even though the public schools have more funding per student.
The evidence that radicals have already successfully overtaken Western universities is overwhelming, and the evidence that these radicals are in the process of taking over secondary education is also readily available for anyone who is interested.
If you are actually looking for some eyewitness accounts, Jordan Peterson has many podcasts where he interviews specific people that have experienced the ideological takeover themselves, including:
He's also interviewed a self-identified liberal and former employee of New York Times that witnessed the takeover at the Times. Starting at minute 8 the conversation diverges into talking about her experience at University.
Bari Weiss says it herself in this podcast, loosely quoted since I don't remember it exactly: If you as a liberal can't see the danger in what is happening, then you have your blinders on.
I would say the same holds true of people who can't see the takeover in education, which is already mostly complete.
Edit: I found the Bari Weiss quote at 43:06: "I have to be honest. At this point, if one can't see the way that this language has been hijacked and used as a kind of trojan horse strategy to smuggle in a hardened, zero-sum identity politics view of the world, to smuggle in a view of the world in which we have collective guilt or collective innocence literally based on the circumstances of our birth, that smuggle in a deeply anti-capitalist position, to smuggle in essentially a leftist illiberalism, then, I'm sorry. You have blinders on! The evidence is so overwhelming at this point.... I think it's because admitting that's true, is extremely psychologically scary, and socially scary, if you are a liberal."
I felt strongly enough about this topic to write a full blog post: http://sreque.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-autumn-manifesto-why-.... TLDR: so-called DI frameworks are really just frameworks for creating and consuming global variables and have very little to do with the actual principle in of DI.
That said, I think the jvm and java the language are in a great spot. It's the frameworks and community that need a shift in mindset.
* Use return values and let people deal with the boilerplate ala Optional in java. We use Optionals to replace null values and IMO the boilerplate is 100% worth it. I've also used return values that can encode possible errors in Java.
* Use unchecked exceptions and expect people to understand the methods they call and the exceptions those methods can throw, which should be documented in javadoc instead of a throws clause. This needs to happen regardless, as methods can throws unchecked exceptions the caller might need to be aware of, so this in reality doesn't involve extra work.
For me, either of these solutions is preferrable to checked exceptions.
Checked exceptions are far from fine, and this has nothing to do with IDE code generation.
Monads are highly cumbersome, unwieldy, and difficult to use, but Haskell programmers put up with them anyways because they get specific value from them, being able to say things like:
Java checked exceptions are like monads, but worse: they are even more unwieldy and interact poorly with the rest of the language. And yet, unlike monads in a language like Haskell, they provide practically zero value for their cost.
There is a reason no language since Java has copied checked exceptions as a feature, including C# which started as a direct rip-off of Java. There are better ways to encode errors into a method signature to try to force the caller to consider them than checked exceptions.
This article reiterates the belief that jvm start-up time is slow is somewhat a myth. When. I measured it years ago, I found jvm start-up time to be roughly equivalent to node.js.
What makes start-up time bad in any interpreted language, including Java, python, and JavaScript, is code-loading time. This time is 0(n), where n is the total size of your app, including transitive dependencies. It takes time to load, parse, and validate non-native code. This time far dwarfs any vm start-up time.
As an experiment, write a hello world node.js app and time it's execution. Then add an import statement on the aws sdk. Don't actually use it. Just import it! When I last measured it, this caused start-up time to go from 30 Ms to something like 300 Ms. The extra time mostly comes from loading code.
For a native app, the binary itself just gets mmapped into memory. Shared library loading is more expensive, but not much, and way less than loading source code or byte code.
The tldr is if you want a fast starting non-native app, you have to shrink the transitive dependency closure your app loads to do it's job. This is easy for toy benchmark apps but can be harder for real apps. It also goes against the philosophy of most devs to rely on third party libraries for everything. For instance, If you care about start-up time, it may be worth re implementing that function you'd normally get from guava or apache commons. You can alternatively use a tool like proguard to shrink your dependency closure.
I don't think there's much scientific evidence that any religion is good or bad. The point is that wokeness is a religion, it is being pushed in schools by the left, and in my opinion it is far worse than Christianity.
There is plenty of evidence Biden's tax plan will impact the middle class more than the rich. Historically when taxes are raised businesses move wealth out of the country and prices rise, and the government even ends up collecting less taxes than before. This happened during the Obama administration and Obama even admitted he would rather raise taxes even if it meant less tax revenue.
Conservatives aren't necessarily against the idea of things like social security; they just question whether government is the best organization to provide these services. It can easily be argued that the government botched social security big time, for instance.
EPA was started by Nixon, a conservative president. Just because we want small government doesn't mean we necessarily want all of government shut down.